Jump to content

The home of high stakes fantasy football.

Welcome! Please take a second to register.

Photo

Dynasty cut date moved


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 menobrown

menobrown

    Starter - First Team

  • Members
  • 1390 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:22 PM

I'd like to voice my displeasure with this change. It's kind of a big deal to move it to post NFL free agency without any kind of warning. I understand some people wanted this change, I did not. But if it was going to happen I think it's poor to not provide advance warning and it should have gone into effect for the next off-season.

 

Moves have already been made in advance preparation that I'd need to know my cuts before FA. Moves have long ago been made to pick up second round and third round picks which have no low at least some value since attractive FA's won't be cut. It's now more beneficial to horde players when cuts don't have to be made until after FA, this is kind of a big thing to know.

 

This is as disappointing an impromptu decision to me as the CC fee lowering payouts. Rule #1 is you don't make changes without advance warning.



#2 GoWithWhatYouGot

GoWithWhatYouGot

    Batboy

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Occupation:Podiatrist

Posted 11 January 2017 - 08:53 AM

I like the new date better.

That said I agree 100% with menobrown the change does affect things enough that it should not take affect immediately as some use the early cut down on there overall strategy.

Hence I 100% agree cut down date should be early
This year and changed for next year .....

#3 Fish

Fish

    Special Teams

  • Members
  • 645 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, TX

Posted 11 January 2017 - 11:38 AM

 

Moves have long ago been made to pick up second round and third round picks which have no low at least some value since attractive FA's won't be cut. It's now more beneficial to horde players when cuts don't have to be made until after FA, this is kind of a big thing to know.

 

 

Meno......with all due respect, I don't understand this logic.

 

I don't believe your 2nd and 3rd round picks have lost any value.  The same number of players will be cut and enter the pool, just 15 days later.  Just because the owner will know a player's new team doesn't mean he always keeps the right guys and cuts the wrong guys.  It could actually work out opposite of what you are stating.  For every FA that looks like he landed in a great spot, a cut is created that wasn't going to be a cut.  If "that guy" was good enough to keep before the "other guy" landed in a great spot, then "that guy" holds some value and now he is in the pool.

 

I also don't understand the "horde" reference.  The most players any of us can have is 23, if your IR was full at season's end.


The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra." ~Jimmy Johnson


#4 SPORTSBETTINGMAN

SPORTSBETTINGMAN

    Tee-Baller

  • Members
  • 278 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:33 PM

Re: horde

 

I think the offseason roster max is closer to 30. (???)

 

You can look through the list of contract expired players and trade for them at a reduced price now, and hope to hit on a great team fit trading for them.  Players like Garcon/Wright/Floyd/DJax/Stills/Britt/Lacy/Latavius, etc can be had on the cheap right now. (???)

 

I'm just guessing that is what he meant.

 

I get what you said, too, Fish, but we all know...more information = less bad cuts.



#5 menobrown

menobrown

    Starter - First Team

  • Members
  • 1390 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:58 PM

 

 

Moves have long ago been made to pick up second round and third round picks which have no low at least some value since attractive FA's won't be cut. It's now more beneficial to horde players when cuts don't have to be made until after FA, this is kind of a big thing to know.

 

 

Meno......with all due respect, I don't understand this logic.

 

I don't believe your 2nd and 3rd round picks have lost any value.  The same number of players will be cut and enter the pool, just 15 days later.  Just because the owner will know a player's new team doesn't mean he always keeps the right guys and cuts the wrong guys.  It could actually work out opposite of what you are stating.  For every FA that looks like he landed in a great spot, a cut is created that wasn't going to be a cut.  If "that guy" was good enough to keep before the "other guy" landed in a great spot, then "that guy" holds some value and now he is in the pool.

 

I also don't understand the "horde" reference.  The most players any of us can have is 23, if your IR was full at season's end.

 

 

A lot of times the vet FA signings don't work out but they still increase their demand if they land well. Ladarius Green, Fleener and Allen as examples all stunk last year but it still heavily impacted drafts.  If cuts were made post-FA none of these guys get cut but as is in most leagues 1-3 were cut. So if for example you had pick 2.5 in a league that at least two of these players were cut it likely meant you were are worse getting to pick rookie 15 in those drafts. This year, with the draft after cuts, I'd guess you are likely looking at rookie number 17 at pick 2.5 so that is why I contend it's thinning it out the draft and making those second/third round picks less valuable. Again, it's not about if that FA did well or like Josh Hill got his value increased because of a trade that we'd have known about with the later cut deadline, it's about the fact that people love their landing spots enough to push other people back so your talent pool is deeper to choose from. It may be minor but how many times have you barely missed your target by 2-3 picks in mid 2nd/3rd round area?

 

With regards to hording. All season long when I manage my teams I try and think about cuts I'll need to make. So if I already know that I'm looking at 1-2 hard cuts on February 28th than I don't really care to collect upcoming FA's or players who FA might open a spot up to on their team. So using concrete examples I would not bother to carry someone like Cordarelle Patterson or Andre Ellington as I've not see enough from them to justify holding through FA in hopes they land someplace that can make them useful. I use those examples because they are players I cut in some leagues in final few weeks because I'd not seen enough to keep and knew I had other players I was having a harder time cutting ranked above them so did not see the point. Now if you had told me I could wait and see where they land in FA then I'm not cutting those players but instead trying to pick up as many players as I can hold to see if FA changes their outlook.  I'd be trying last few weeks or as soon as I had roster room to grab guys like Kendall Wright, Doyle, etc, etc. So hording not best choice of words so much that I'm hording players who I think FA/few weeks of off-season trading, etc, have potential to alter their values.

 

I'm not even trying to debate the merits of a later cut down date, I accept it as the new reality and move on and I know a lot of people were in favor of it. I would also say that many would say since this rule is put in place after the 2016 season and before payment is required the FFPC did what it should do, which is implement a rule change after the season was over. This to me is a gray area and essentially where my issue lied. Not so much the rule change, the timing. It was in fact after the season but I contend rosters would have been managed different last season had we known this change was coming.

 

Was not trying to make a huge issue out of this but I just think relaying this upcoming rule change to existing owners should have been done during the 2016 season so we could have managed our rosters accordingly or relayed to us as a rule change that will be going into place next off-season.


  • SPORTSBETTINGMAN and Invictus. like this

#6 Aunt Jemima

Aunt Jemima

    Benchwarmer

  • Members
  • 446 posts
  • LocationMedia, PA

Posted 11 January 2017 - 05:53 PM

I agree with pretty much everything Meno said, it is the reason in my home leagues that any current year rule change requires 100% yes votes otherwise change is implemented the following year. It would have changed a bit how we handled things, but that being said it isn't that big of a deal.

 

I think the point is just making a note to Dave that the more advance communication we can have on these changes the better. This is still the best place to play dynasty,  just keeping dialogue open so we wind up with the best product.

 

I'm looking at all my silly year end rosters where I'm carrying multiple defenses and kicking myself :(


  • menobrown likes this

#7 Fish

Fish

    Special Teams

  • Members
  • 645 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, TX

Posted 11 January 2017 - 10:31 PM

Re: horde

 

I think the offseason roster max is closer to 30. (???)

 

You can look through the list of contract expired players and trade for them at a reduced price now, and hope to hit on a great team fit trading for them.  Players like Garcon/Wright/Floyd/DJax/Stills/Britt/Lacy/Latavius, etc can be had on the cheap right now. (???)

 

I'm just guessing that is what he meant.

 

I get what you said, too, Fish, but we all know...more information = less bad cuts.

 

Great point Lance.....I foolishly had not considered the ability to increase roster size via the trade avenue.  


The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra." ~Jimmy Johnson


#8 Fish

Fish

    Special Teams

  • Members
  • 645 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, TX

Posted 11 January 2017 - 11:40 PM

 

 

 

Moves have long ago been made to pick up second round and third round picks which have no low at least some value since attractive FA's won't be cut. It's now more beneficial to horde players when cuts don't have to be made until after FA, this is kind of a big thing to know.

 

 

Meno......with all due respect, I don't understand this logic.

 

I don't believe your 2nd and 3rd round picks have lost any value.  The same number of players will be cut and enter the pool, just 15 days later.  Just because the owner will know a player's new team doesn't mean he always keeps the right guys and cuts the wrong guys.  It could actually work out opposite of what you are stating.  For every FA that looks like he landed in a great spot, a cut is created that wasn't going to be a cut.  If "that guy" was good enough to keep before the "other guy" landed in a great spot, then "that guy" holds some value and now he is in the pool.

 

I also don't understand the "horde" reference.  The most players any of us can have is 23, if your IR was full at season's end.

 

 

A lot of times the vet FA signings don't work out but they still increase their demand if they land well. Ladarius Green, Fleener and Allen as examples all stunk last year but it still heavily impacted drafts.  If cuts were made post-FA none of these guys get cut but as is in most leagues 1-3 were cut. So if for example you had pick 2.5 in a league that at least two of these players were cut it likely meant you were are worse getting to pick rookie 15 in those drafts. This year, with the draft after cuts, I'd guess you are likely looking at rookie number 17 at pick 2.5 so that is why I contend it's thinning it out the draft and making those second/third round picks less valuable. Again, it's not about if that FA did well or like Josh Hill got his value increased because of a trade that we'd have known about with the later cut deadline, it's about the fact that people love their landing spots enough to push other people back so your talent pool is deeper to choose from. It may be minor but how many times have you barely missed your target by 2-3 picks in mid 2nd/3rd round area?

 

With regards to hording. All season long when I manage my teams I try and think about cuts I'll need to make. So if I already know that I'm looking at 1-2 hard cuts on February 28th than I don't really care to collect upcoming FA's or players who FA might open a spot up to on their team. So using concrete examples I would not bother to carry someone like Cordarelle Patterson or Andre Ellington as I've not see enough from them to justify holding through FA in hopes they land someplace that can make them useful. I use those examples because they are players I cut in some leagues in final few weeks because I'd not seen enough to keep and knew I had other players I was having a harder time cutting ranked above them so did not see the point. Now if you had told me I could wait and see where they land in FA then I'm not cutting those players but instead trying to pick up as many players as I can hold to see if FA changes their outlook.  I'd be trying last few weeks or as soon as I had roster room to grab guys like Kendall Wright, Doyle, etc, etc. So hording not best choice of words so much that I'm hording players who I think FA/few weeks of off-season trading, etc, have potential to alter their values.

 

I'm not even trying to debate the merits of a later cut down date, I accept it as the new reality and move on and I know a lot of people were in favor of it. I would also say that many would say since this rule is put in place after the 2016 season and before payment is required the FFPC did what it should do, which is implement a rule change after the season was over. This to me is a gray area and essentially where my issue lied. Not so much the rule change, the timing. It was in fact after the season but I contend rosters would have been managed different last season had we known this change was coming.

 

Was not trying to make a huge issue out of this but I just think relaying this upcoming rule change to existing owners should have been done during the 2016 season so we could have managed our rosters accordingly or relayed to us as a rule change that will be going into place next off-season.

 

 

Really good post Meno......well explained and point(s) well taken.


The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra." ~Jimmy Johnson


#9 Gryphons/Boise/Wyverns

Gryphons/Boise/Wyverns

    Special Teams

  • Members
  • 720 posts
  • LocationMadison

Posted 13 January 2017 - 06:12 PM

I would agree with whoever said that any change should not take effect until the following season IF the change affects moves that people have already made.

 

Yes, 2nd and 3rd round picks for this year (that people traded for last year) have lost value.  There is absolutely no way to dispute that.  Seeing NFL free agency is going to lessen the number of attractive players who might have been thrown into the draft pool.  Hence, lowering the value of the picks people planned ahead last year and traded for. 

 

On several occasions I have seen veterans drafted in the FIRST round of the rookie/vet drafts because some average guy ended up in a great situation via free agency.  I have seen many vets drafted in the 2nd round, and NONE of them would have been their had the owners who dropped them had the luxury of seeing what happened in free agency. 



#10 GoWithWhatYouGot

GoWithWhatYouGot

    Batboy

  • Members
  • 57 posts
  • Occupation:Podiatrist

Posted 14 January 2017 - 08:42 AM

I would agree with whoever said that any change should not take effect until the following season IF the change affects moves that people have already made.
 
Yes, 2nd and 3rd round picks for this year (that people traded for last year) have lost value.  There is absolutely no way to dispute that.  Seeing NFL free agency is going to lessen the number of attractive players who might have been thrown into the draft pool.  Hence, lowering the value of the picks people planned ahead last year and traded for. 
 
On several occasions I have seen veterans drafted in the FIRST round of the rookie/vet drafts because some average guy ended up in a great situation via free agency.  I have seen many vets drafted in the 2nd round, and NONE of them would have been their had the owners who dropped them had the luxury of seeing what happened in free agency.





That was me. And like I said I really don't care I don't have the much strategy game, but there are those that do and to be fair the rule should start 2018....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users